9/11 Live Airplane Composite Theory

[Ed Jewett]

9/11 Live Airplane Composite Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeXvMblFw...r_embedded

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/the...sites.html

"I present a demonstration of the technique used to create the two live 9/11 video composites, first Chopper 7, then Chopper 5.

Higher quality versions of the compositing demonstrations may be downloaded here:

Chopper 5
Chopper 7


No airplane crashed into either Twin Tower. The various videos which depict a plane entering a building, such as Naudet, CNN Ghostplane, Evan Fairbanks, Luc Courchesne, and Spiegel TV, show just that a plane entering a wall. They are devoid of the crash physics we would expect from an aluminum aircraft interacting with a steel and concrete structure. The plane does not twist, bend, break, explode or slow down. A certain frame of the CNN video shows no damage to the wall, after the wing of the airplane has passed through....."

[Kyle Burnett]

[Peter Lemkin]

I'm willing to entertain that some very strange things and tricks for the eyes happened that day; but how does one explain the fact that there are many individuals who claim to have seen and heard the planes head toward and hit the buildings? Especially the second 'crash', which was witnessed by many in real time both on TV and [we are led to believe] with their eyes on the ground in NYC. Just asking.

[Ed Jewett]

Harley men? Hired actors?

[Ed Jewett]

Peter, in working on another project, I came across this quote from Peter Levenda's book "Sinister Forces: A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft" (Volume One: The Nine):

Levenda says "... there are only two sides to this debate: you either believe it, or you don't. You're not allowed to sit on the fence, and simply say "I don't know," because you will be immediately assailed on both sides by those were desperate to shove their point of view down your rapidly constricting throat. In the absence of openness from the American government regarding what it knows…, both believers and actual witnesses are forced into a kind of fantasyland: believers can make up any story they like, because they will all be denied with equal vehemence. Witnesses are forced to either admit they are mistaken or worse in saying, doubting the solid evidence of their senses. And when that happens, a crime on a par with murder takes place: the murder of truth, a sinas Sr. Agatha used to sayagainst the Holy Spirit."

Levenda was talking in this case about UFO's and Fred Crisman and related topics, but the same might well be said about the Kennedy assassinations, 9/11, or dozen other topics.

[Kyle Burnett]

What Levenda suggests is true to an extent, the few Parkland doctors who place JFK's head wound was further forward than the rest being one notable example. On the other hand, I don't any people who say they were looking at the buildings when they should have seen a plane hit but didn't, do you?

[Ed Jewett]

What Levenda suggests is true to an extent, the few Parkland doctors who place JFK's head wound was further forward than the rest being one notable example. On the other hand, I don't any people who say they were looking at the buildings when they should have seen a plane hit but didn't, do you?

I am but a very distant observer. I wasn't there. I am at the mercy of the cacophony of information and voices. Like many aspects of 9/11 (and other controversies), there are "camps" or groupings of people who are in one school of thought or another on some piece of minutiae. Greater minds than mine who have studied Dallas/JFK more intensively have shown how the events are purposefully pre-seeded in multiple ways and locations in order to fuel doubt. I always harken back to Vincent Salandria, myself, and his admonition to avoid getting caught up in the debate of the minutiae and step back and see the obvious. 9/11 was the act of a sophisticated "state" with the capability of a closely-integrated "black op" involving computers, media and some form of "black" or previously-unused military/intel technology. And all the key parts are hidden from any forensic, cognitive or political inquiry or investigation. Kissinger was first proposed as chairman of the 9/11 Commission. A reading of the Wikipedia entries for him and David Rockefeller is, er, um, illuminating.

[Kyle Burnett]

Like many aspects of 9/11 (and other controversies), there are "camps" or groupings of people who are in one school of thought or another on some piece of minutiae.

Sure, and given your apparent lack of interest in discussing the supposed evidence of video fakery; I take it you are in the camp that enjoys promoting any argument against the official story regardless of whether or not it stands up to scrutiny. eh?

[Ed Jewett]

Like many aspects of 9/11 (and other controversies), there are "camps" or groupings of people who are in one school of thought or another on some piece of minutiae.

Sure, and given your apparent lack of interest in discussing the supposed evidence of video fakery; I take it you are in the camp that enjoys promoting any argument against the official story regardless of whether or not it stands up to scrutiny. eh?

Oh, I love it when I get analyzed from a distance. Who are you? What possibly could you know about me and my experience, education, or background, or what superbly insightful skills in your own quiver of tools allows you to jump to those conclusions? My apparent lack of interest might stem from the fact that I have other issues on my plate so I don't have the time to argue the minutiae or whether "the argument stands up to scrutiny". From what I understand of the software available in the medium today, it is plausible, but I post most things here so that they may be scrutinized by a wider variety of people with different expertise in a way that might allow some clarity to emerge.

From where I sit (going back five decades) the official stories of the US government haven't been able to withstand more than about two weeks worth of scrutiny, and here were are almost a decade (and how many lives?) away from the event in question. If you are asking if my mind is made up that the official story is a pile of hogwash, then you can put me down for a "yes". If you ask me to forward my best theory as to how things actually went down, I note only that many are here still debating the angle and trajectory of shots fired 17,357 days ago (47 years, 6 months, 9 days).

[Kyle Burnett]

Who are you?

Your second paragraph describing yourself also describes me well, though you've got a couple of decades on me. and rather than "note only that many are here still debating the angle and trajectory of shots fired 17,357 days ago" I prefer to note the obfuscation and destruction of evidence which limits the accuracy with which such questions can be answered.

What possibly could you know about me and my experience, education, or background, or what superbly insightful skills in your own quiver of tools allows you to jump to those conclusions?

All I know of you is what I've seen you post, but it didn't take any extraordinary skills or leaps in logic to deduce that you are too preoccupied to scrutinize the claim you are promoting here. I based that conclusion simply on the nebulous and evasive manor in which you responded to Peter and I's attempts to discuss the claim with you.

From what I understand of the software available in the medium today, it is plausible

Well it's not plausible, though for reasons that have nothing to do with software. If you ever do find an interest in discussing the matter, I'd be happy to oblige.